If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope all is well ... We are plainly informed within the Garden narrative that, after partaking of their first piece of magic fruit, the Lovebirds became more like the Almighty.Considering this, it seems here that you are vicariously suggesting that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach is rebellious and independent ... I do not follow that vein of reason.What is your evidence that the couple in the Garden inherited a spirit of rebellion and independence which made them more like the Almighty Father of Yeshua HaMashiach?One Love

Thank you for the exchange Peg. One may, or may not, note the appearance of an underlying assumption attached to this line of rhetoric.It seems that in order for it to follow coherently, the contemplater must assume that the 12 apostles, obviously fashioned from the previous model consisting of the 12 nations of Yisrael, were surely more faithful than their predecessors in accomplishing the task that was supposedly given to them. That being, I would assume, earnestly working in the fields and faithfully planting the fruit of the Ruach HaKodesh.This is not meant to imply that the '12 nations of Yisrael' and the '12 apostles of HaMashiach' were incompetent. HiStory presents us with many adversarial opponents, even within scripture, who consciously attempt to integrate their own 'Good News' into Yeshua's Gospel with seemingly undying relent. Their relent will wither away eventually, because it is not life (law/grace/truth), but Death (Chaos/Guilt/Lies).That aside for a moment, we are shown consistently through scripture that the apostles did not understand what Yeshua was asking them to do. For example, Kefa is rebuked for desiring nothing less than to implement the basic forms Ba'al worship, etc.. Immediately after his folly a 'voice from a bright cloud' is heard from above, which is refering to Yeshua HaMashiach and the voice interrupts the insecure and easily misled Kefa saying:"This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!"Often times it seems as though the words of Yeshua take a back seat to the words of His proteges, much like the words that were delivered through Moshe had come to take a back seat to the Rabbinical trends that had long since permeated Judean thought. I find it intriguing really, though a wee bit sad too, how hiStory continually seems to repeat itself, in regards to politics as well as religion, as it endures the birth pangs of Hope.One Love

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Hope things are well for you ... Although I cannot speak for purpledawn, there are things that I often consider when enjoying Paul's writings.You see, the thing is, Paul did not write his letters with the intention of getting them into the Bible, like it was some sort of Council of Nicea contest or Reader's Digest contest or something. He was a running a different race with a different pot of gold at the end, and so, with great zeal, he went on missionary trips to spread the Good News of Yeshua HaMashiach, and in the process many people came to believe, and those people got together into congregations and formed those familiar ol' things we call churches.It seems as though all of Paul's letters, perhaps with the exception of Romans, are all written to those individual churches with their individual needs, or else to individual Christians with individual needs, like Titus & lil' Timmy for example. One issue that seems to have arisen is that these letters have been interpreted as being universally applicable within time and space in an interchangeable context, rather than pertaining to their actual audience, or at least, the actual context that the original audience was experiencing and being encouraged about.In some ways, like when he shares that there is 'no more condemnation for those who are in HaMashiach', Paul's words seem to appear timeless and in some ways, like when he suggests that women, who at that time generally would not have received an education, should not speak in church, the timelessness of his writing's does not shine through as bright. The heart of the issue appears to be further compounded as portions of Paul's literature, which may or may not be universal to time and space, seemingly invites the potential to become applied in an interchangeable context that reality and logic do not withstand.Obviously, this is not an isolated phenomenon.Here's the thing: If you were an ambitious person, perhaps fashioned similarly to many money grubbin', war-mongerin', religious pranksters in the early common era, and you were looking for a way to twist the Bible to make it sound like it says things that it actually does not say, where would be a great place for you to begin your quest?The gospels ... the radical prophetic traditions? Or would you start with the epistles - and by extension, since he wrote most of them, with our esteemed friend Paul? Nevertheless, if the character of Paul and the entirety of his writings are taken into account, it becomes clear that nothing he says runs against Yeshua HaMashiach's teachings or the word of God (which I consider One). Follow me through a quick exercise, if you will, highlighting Yeshua, whom Paul obviously adored, as we consider the matter of obeying various and supposed authorities.When Yeshua and his disciple Kefa had come to Capernaum, those who collected the didrachma coins approached Kefa saying, 'Doesn't your teacher pay the didrachma?'.Kefa replied, 'Yes.'.After, when Kefa had come into the house, Yeshua anticipated him, saying ...What do you think, Simon?

​

From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute?

​

From their children, or from strangers?Kefa answered Yeshua saying, 'From strangers'.Yeshua said to him ...Therefore the children are exempt.

​

But, lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take up the first fish that comes up.

​

When you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater coin.

​

Take that, and give it to them for me and you.So, we begin to see that Yeshua himself obeyed authorities that he did not put stock into, when he paid the temple tax that He and His Father's children are exempt from, so that people may not stumble; you see, Yeshua was well aware that it is not nice to trip your brothers and sisters and, yes, usually even strangers. Most are well aware though, that under a different set of circumstances - in a distictly separate context - Yeshua may layeth the smack down on usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion, and maybe those stangers too, if they felt the need to help those serpents trip the children ...In one occurence, it is written that Yeshua paid a visit to Herod's fancy temple in Yirusalem, at which the courtyard, we are told, was filled with livestock - likely enough to feed a small army of po', dirty and diseased sinners - and the tables of the money changers weren't too far from the tables of them other guys who had stolen some of God's sacred doves and had started marking up the price on them doves and they really started makin' a killing, them guys did. Those fellas earned a lot of their profits on stolen doves and some guys even wound up sellin' them doves without realizing they were stolen.It is a given that many people in the surrounding area who loved God were po', dirty and diseased, as is the case in our present world.Yet, these money grubbin religious pranksters, however pious they had deluded themselves into thinking they had become, were not concerned with them po', dirty and diseased people because the pranksters had convinced themselves that people had made themselves po', dirty and diseased and that God was mad at 'em for it, and so they just went about exchanging the standard Greek and Roman coin for Jewish and Tyrian coin, which were the only coinage that could be used in them, ever so, sacred Temple ceremonies.According to the Gospels, Yeshua took offense at those deluded religious pranksters continuous attempts to extort a profit from all them people that loved God, in order that those people who loved God could hear the 'official' word of God, and so, knowing that a cord of multiple strands is not easily broken, Yeshua fashioned a whip from some cords that He had at his disposal and drove them confused folk - the ones sellin' stolen doves they didn't realize were stolen, the thiefs that stole them sacred doves from Yeshua's Father in the first place and those money grubbin' religious pranksters - right out of the sacred Temple and then Yeshua finally flipped their precious lil' tables right over (Matthew 21:13).And so, in the end of the matter, is one really supposed to think that Paul means 'above all else, obey authorities, even if it means you need to quit loving your neighbour and start hurting him instead'?Of course not.But you can't argue that to the conspiracy theorists because they've already got their minds made up on the matter. It's like anything else with the Bible; interpret a few lines in isolation, or discount the CE historical data, and you've got a great controversy ...Interpret them within view of the biggest picture and you may begin to achieve harmony.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope your day is well ... Consider, the couple in the Garden is first naive and unaware of mischief.The Lovebirds did not have the Knowledge of Good and Evil before usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion tricked them into eating from one of the Two Trees; therefore, they could not perceive that they themselves were naive or that usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion was mischievous.However, after the Lovebirds are deceived into eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge, their awareness of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion's mischief becomes all but evident and the confused couple openly admits, to their Father, that they have been deceived.This seems to suggest that their naivety was beginning to melt away. At this point, in the narrative, the Lovebirds have become more aware that they were naive and, more importantly, that usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion is mischievous.The couple in the Garden has now begun to acquire the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is already at the disposal of the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach, and in this way the Lovebirds have become more like their Father. You have suggested that the magic fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge bestowed a spirit of independence and rebellion upon the couple in the Garden.Yet, the Bible states that the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge caused the Lovebirds to become more like God.Now, although I do find it agreeable that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach and the Lovebirds is God, I do not find it agreeable that the couple acquired a 'spirit of independence and rebellion' from the Tree of the Knowledge or that such an acquisition would cause the couple to, somehow, become more like their Father.I would like some evidence that what you are suggesting is in any way harmonious with the Garden account (ie. a defiant and purposeful independent or rebellious act on behalf of the Lovebirds after Gen. 3:6. or some strong evidence that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach and the Lovebirds is independent or rebellious). (btw, fear and trembling are not independence or rebellion.)One Love

Thank you for the exchange Peg. Yes I can and no I won't.But, I'll tell what you can do: You go and get yourself a snazzy Red Letter Bible, if ya haven't got one handy, and then grab yourself a brand new black Sharpie with the biggest, blackest tip on it. Now, all you need to do is open up that snazzy Red Letter Bible you got your lil' paws on and then you set out on a quest to find yourself every single letter, in that whole book, that the printers printed black ...Once you find them, take the cap off of that big ol' black Sharpie you grabbed and just start a draggin' it 'cross all of them lil' black letters in that book, letter by letter, line by line, page by page, until all that remains are those bright Red Letters, and then study just them beautiful Red Letters, all by themselves, over and over and over again, until your eyes wear them bright, beautiful Red Letters right off them pages, and then it may, or may not, become more apparent why religion is here and what it implies exactly. Peg, many 'Christian' teachings are not in accord with one another.
Let's leave religious dogma alone for now and, instead, be honest.I will first admit that, after the Wedding passage of Gen 2:24, I often consider the Lovebirds as 'one flesh'.The fact that the Couple is faulted and accountable does not appear to be a matter of private interpretation. That is fine, as the point is not needed to strengthen the case.Anyway, we both agree Eve was deceived and I disagree with you that Adam should have abandoned His wife.You are supposed to be scripturally confirming your assertions that:1) The Lovebirds themselves acquired independence and rebellion from the Tree of the Knowledge.2) The knowledge of independence and rebellion made the couple in the Garden more like God.Within the verses of 1st Timmy that you have brought to light, the author indicates that women should circumcise their clothing habits, if they desire to display reverence towards the Father, by not wearing braids, jewelery or expensive duds.In addition, we are informed by the author that women should learn of spiritual matters quitely and submissively and that because Eve was deceived - as opposed to Adam - Paul does not allow women to instruct men regarding spiritual matters.I am not sure how this helps your case. You are correct in pointing out that the Lovebirds experienced a big ol' heap of fear & tremblin'; when one (or more) is reverent, such behavior is often the signature of guilt and shame.So we see, straight away after disobeying their Father, the Lovebirds are convicted to hide - like lil' children often do - as an obvious sense of guilt and shame chases after them. You do appear correct in pointing out that the Lovebirds are no longer displaying naivety, as I suggested earlier, and that the couple, at this point in the narrative, are certainly becoming more aware that usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion is indeed mischievous.However, as odd as it may or may not seem, you have decided that 'rather then admitting wrong, they each tried to put the blame on the other'; yet, in making such a statement, you have begun to modify the story, as well as the question the Lovebird's were asked by their Father. Eve never attempts to put the blame on Adam in any way ... lolNevertheless, you see, within the narrative their Father does not ask, 'Who is wrong?' or 'Who will admit they are wrong?'.Now, the thing is, the Father did ask those Lovebirds a couple of basic questions:1) Who told you that you were naked?2) Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?Now we know that nobody told the Lovebirds that they were naked and their Father - already having the Knowledge of Good and Evil - even suggests that the knowledge they had acquired from that ol' Tree helped the children figure that one out.That leaves us with the other question ... didjoo eat from that Tree that I told you not to?Let's take a look at what their responses were, while keeping in mind that a simple 'yes' or equally basic confession should suffice for admitting fault ... I don't know Peg, we may need a third opinion ...Looks, to me, like both of the Lovebirds decided to confess their sin by saying 'so I ate', in addition to being open and honest about the additional events that lead up to their questioning. Explaining the course of events that transpired in their entirety does not somehow equate to dodging blame.It becomes difficult for me to imagine you could reasonably disagree with this ...That is, of course, unless you disagree that the serpent deceived Eve and/or that Eve gave some fruit to Adam from the Tree. Upon a close inspection of their behavior, I would say yes.I am also noting that you agree that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach does not lie ... I can only assume that you are suggesting the Lovebirds shoplifted fruit from the Garden.Well before the Tree of the Knowledge became an issue for the young married couple, after his Father gave him his beautiful - albeit naive - bride, the reader is told Adam must 'leave his father and his mother, and ... cleave unto his wife: and ... be one flesh.'Shortly thereafter Eve was deceived, but Adam was committed to his wife from the beginning to the end - much in the same way that the Father is committed to all of His children from the beginning to the end. This is true. Yet, we see that their Father is the judge who considers how the law was transgressed ...First and foremost, the Father's just discernment immediately pursues the serpent, as can be evidenced by the Father's clause toward the serpent, '... because you have done this ...' (Gen 3:14). The serpent gets it real bad, but why should it not, considering 'the serpent has done this' and the Lovebirds are victims. That ol' serpent gets all the cursin' it deserves and, to top it off, after that ol' snake in the grass gets done eatin' dust while crawling on it's belly in the freshly prickered landscape all the days of it's life, the Lovebird's Father is going to make sure that ol' deceiver finally gets its head stomped in by one of Eve's kids.However, the Father does not employ a reprimanding clause for Eve, as she was deceived, but instead foretells her of an increased pain she will consequently undergo as a result of the serpent's shenanigans. The Father also states that His daughter Eve's desire will be for her husband, who is to be the head of their household.Similarly, we see the Father decides Adam should evade harsh punishment as well, by his Father's decision to deflect the curse, perhaps intended for him, to the ground where that ol' snake slithers 'roun. Just to make sure the pricker's don't interfere with workin' the fields too much, their Father gives them each a more durable pair of leather slacks.The Father protects His children from the consequences, which must unfold, of a serpent's lame shenanigans.If it is not yet evident that the Father faults the serpent, much more so than His children, then go study them Red Letters some more, and then return to Genesis and try again ... Incorrect. Adam was honest and told his Father what transpired. You make it sound as if they already knew theology before they began acquiring the Knowledge of Good & Evil.lol - you gotta stop trashin' your ancestors; I bet all they do is pray for us ... A better question.Can you, and if so - will you, provide scriptural evidence to support the popular, yet seemingly false, assumption that the Lovebirds acquired independence and rebellion.Perhaps you could flesh things out by quoting where, after Gen 3:6, the Lovebirds 'continually' act rebellious and idependently, as you say? Say 6 or 7 examples ...Even 4 or 5 ...Or 2 or 3 ...1? I wasn't makin' that up ya know - lol This is important.The Lovebird's Father did not reveal that the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge would cause them to become more like Him; yet, it did, as the Bible plainly shares.As you have stated, the Father tells the children that they will 'surely die' the day they eat from the Tree of the Knowledge; yet, they do not, as the Bible plainly shares.Seems as though either the Father may be the lyin' rebel some accuse Him of being or that the serpent thought it had some positive intel ... lol - you thought the serpent was being honest?You must remember that usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion never, ever, tells the Truth, being the Father of Lies and all, and so, it should follow that when that serpent said, 'Nah, you won't die - you'll be like God', it really thought, 'Soon as I get them kids to climb that Tree they ain't supposed to climb, I will finally have this fine lil' Garden all to my lonesome'. Yes He did - the same day He made that serpents worst nightmare come true ...Perhaps usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion was trying to get those children killed, thinking that it had a plan, but it did not fully realize that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach Loves the Children and Grace more than He cares for the law and serpents.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope all is well with you ... Wasn't Yermiyah a jew? He'll tell you straight up that the Levite scribes employed a lying pen and much, much more.
(not that we should believe him or any of the Prophets though, right?)As those within the radical prophetic tradition recognized, and as later history demonstrates again and again, the role of religious propaganda was to bring people into subjection to political authorities. Chances are, there has never been a better method of stirring up war fever or social intolerance in the service of a theocracy or democracy - or any state for that matter - than to claim that a Decree was called for and endorsed by, the one and only, God. Form follows function, according to form criticism, and in many cases the form (religious and political war propaganda) was certainly dictated by the obvious functions such writings were intended to serve.Hoshea actually opens his own book with an unequivocal attack on the Bible, which he cleverly arranges through metaphor. Through his writings, we are presented with the interesting case of a prophet fulfilling the apparent role of one of the world's first recorded practitioners of biblical source and redaction criticism. He was likely a critical thinker, being an early biblical critic who condemned the book of Judges, amongst others, and appears to have been far from convinced of the questioned doctrine of the inerrancy of the bible. It is all but clear that neither Yermiyah or Hoshea, likely in cahoots with various others within the prophetic tradition, believed that everything recorded in the bible was the infallible Word of God.It is a fact, too little known, that those within the radical Jewish prophetic traditions were relentless critics of the Bible and in particular the Torah. Yet, in order for such beliefs as that of 'inerrant scripture' to be kept in force, the lost message of the prophets must remain lost and nullified forever and ever.It is the only way ...Otherwise, entire manuscripts would require reinterpretation and others would have their inclusion into the canon questioned, for it was Prophets who first attacked the canon of scripture (ironically becoming part of scripture in the process, and sadly, becoming nullified scripture in actual practice, despite the doctrine of 'sola scriptura').One Love Edited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : title

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope things are well with you ... It appears as though the 'nakedness' the Newlyweds were covering was their stupidity, or rather, lack of knowledge.If I have approached this verse plainly, there are three things happening in Gen. 3:7 ...1) Eyes are being opened.
2) New realization(s) are forming/have formed
3) The Lovebirds form primitive coveringsIt appears safe to assume that the primitive coverings are a result of a realization that was made as the Lovebirds eyes were finally opened.So, one question is, what did the couple realize?Could it be that the serpent is mischievous?Let's dig deep. Now we see that, prior to this verse, Eve has made a note of three things:1) The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is good for food.
2) The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is pleasing to the eye.
3) The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is of a Tree to be desired to make one wise.One of these notes is doin' its own thing, one of these notes isn't one of the same ...
One of these notes is doin' its own thing, and now it's time to say its name ...The first two of these distinctions that Eve has made are biblically confirmed (2:9), before Eve is even created (2:22), although this fact is only revealed to the reader and not unto the couple in the Garden.Neither the Father nor the serpent suggests to the young lady, who notes that this is naturally true on her own accord, that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is pleasing to the eye, which is exactly the case; instead, the serpent chooses to try and pawn off a desire unto Eve.Now, that ol' snake is pretty clever regarding how it goes about pawning it's wares, and so, it encourages Eve by suggesting that her Father is not spot on about that Tree and that the fruit from that ol' Tree is harmless; in fact, it's better than harmless, but if death is your primary concern then rest easy lil' lady, cuz that juicy fruit certainly won't kill ya (which I personally doubt we are supposed to think it believed, being that it is a slithery snake sellin' snake oil and all) ...This next point seems important, and often overlooked ...After the serpent informs the young lady of her Father's supposed blunder, she first begins to accept it's advice by convincing herself that the fruit from the Tree is good for food, as is the case coincidentally. Nevertheless, Eve's pretty eyes could not have told her that, and neither did her loving Father or that ol' serpent come right out and say it.This desire that is pawned off onto Eve, as we are told, is for a Tree whose fruit will make her wise, like her Father, in turn causing her to know good and evil. It should be evident that this is not a natural desire for Eve or her husband. The implication appears to be that, if one desires to be wise, Adam's wisdom is insufficient; at least, as far as usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion is concerned.After the naive young lady accepts the serpents seed of desire, she plants that seed, by taking from the Tree herself, and fertilizes that seed as well, by giving some of it to her husband ...And then their eyes are opened.Is it reasonable to suggest that eating the fruit didn't do $h!t, besides cause the Lovebirds to plant and fertilize a seed of desire being hustled by a serpent, and so, as the Lovebirds themselves began to realize that the serpent itself was, for the most part, full of $h!t - their eyes were open?Consider, when the young couple realizes that the snake oil they have been sold is indeed, seemingly worthless, snake oil and that the wondrous revelation and enlightenment the serpent pitched did not actually come into fruition the way the Lovebirds were expecting it to, their eyes are opened that they has been duped by the snake oil sellin' serpent.Perhaps their eyes have also perceived, for the first time, that the two creatures are not biological equivalents and obvious distinctions can be made between the body of a man and the body of a woman. Could this, in turn, have created an unique sense of loneliness and discomfort for each of them, and so they covered their bits in an attempt to maintain equality? Pure speculation in this instance, granted ...Thankfully, that seed of desire that the mischievous serpent has planted seemingly backfired on it's a$$, if getting its head stomped in is any indication, and now the couple has certainly become aware that, for example, there are indeed good Fathers and evil serpents. They have become more like God, knowing that there is 'good' (personal grace) and 'bad' (corporate half-truths) in their existence. Only speculation can assume that the cute couple has become enough like their Father to distinguish the two on a regular basis ...If one thing is certain though, it is that the Lovebirds are ashamed they did not listen to their Father, instead lending credence to the desires of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion, and are convicted by their awakening - their eyes being opened - that they must undergo metanonia ...If this was not the case the two kids would not have 'fessed up to dabblin' in serpentry.In light of this, it may be worth considering that this event inspired the famous Hebrew tradition of donning a sackcloth, or a crude covering, while in the throes of repentance. I find this significant as well.The implication seems to be that whatever the Lovebirds were attempting to cover with their crude fig aprons, that being their private bits and lack of knowledge assumedly, they were indeed not meant to leave such things exposed as far as their Father is concerned.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Thanks for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope all is well in your camp ... Interesting ...Understanding the original figurative contexts may quickly reveal what could cause somebody to take on the various characteristics given to salt within scripture. Also, it appears that identifying the distinct ways in which disciples may be considered like salt and implementing the various qualities (prudence, wisdom, harmony, etc.) that may actually cause one to take on the metaphoric roles presented in such characteristics (fertilizer, flavoring, preservative, etc.) may prove to be separate, although related, challenges.Personally, I assume the words of Yeshua, who is said to have spoken only what the Father commanded of Him, are what the 'salt' represents; and so I find myself in a sort of agreement with you regarding your favored concepts of wisdom/prudence. It is then, seemingly, the various interpretations which stem from the words which are spoken by Yeshua that potentially run the risk of 'losing' their 'saltiness', in turn being 'thrown out and trampled by men'.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange .
Some quick questions ... So, even after the Lovebirds have donned their freshly fashioned figs, the couple is still claiming that they feel naked - right ... or no?Is Adam saying that when he heard His Fathers voice he hid because he had realized his nakedness earlier; with the sentence not further implying that they still considered themselves naked after fashioning their frugal figs? Does a plain reading allow us to consider whether this event is describing the Newlyweds adaptation/evolution into a consciousness, or perhaps personal conscience, that they did not recognize prior to 'the eyes [of them both becoming] opened'; a basic departure from their previous animistic existence where a communication with animals was natural?Also, is there any significance to be found in the fact the plain text asserts that 'the day' Adam breaks his Father's commandment he will 'surely die', and yet, 'the day' the commandment is broken by his wife and him, nobody dies?After all, the story does not read, " ... the day you eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, your eyes will surely be opened causing you to recognize, and begin identifying with, a new sense of nakedness you don't have right now; a knowledge I possess called the Knowledge of Good and Evil ...And you will have to leave the Garden too, but I'll insure that nobody eats any of the fruit from the Tree, which I have set apart, that perpetuates continuous living while they feel naked knowing good and evil ... "Lastly, is there any insight to be found if one considers that what Adam and Eve identify as nudity and nakedness is considered by their Father to be the knowledge of ethical and moral reasoning?Can any correlation be made within the narrative between conscientiousness and morality/ethics?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are good with ya ... Yes. I am interested in your opinion ... 1, 2, or 3?1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?2) Do you feel as though Adam is referring to the earlier time (Gen. 3:7) when he first perceived himself as naked; thus, implying that he no longer views himself in this manner with his figs on and that it is, instead, the 'shame' which he also accrued in addition to his original realization of 'nakedness', that is actually causing him to hide?3) Do you feel that neither of the above statements accurately depicts what is taking place? Good question ...Do you think that the realization of 'nakedness' and the consequent perception of being 'afraid' may not be equivocal in the narrative, although they are introduced in a causal relationship? Is there any sort of dichotomy to be found in the Lovebird's first perception, that being 'not ashamed', and their latter consequent of becoming 'afraid'? Fair enough ... Yes, but isn't that the point of the Father teaching his children in the narrative?If they break this one commandment, they will die that day, and so, being dead and all, they will not be able to countinue to 'dress and keep' the Garden, much less 'be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth'.Yet, the Lovebirds are still able to do all of these things after their Father's teaching is ignored, with the exception of 'dress[ing] and keep[ing]' the Garden.This does not strike anybody as odd, considering they are supposed to be dead by sunset? The text says, ' ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'The word day, yowm, is from an unused root meaning 'to be hot' and is given specifically as 'the warm hours' of the day.Back in the day, the word 'day' could mean various lengths of time in English too. lol - it's still often used to connotate a length of time other than the standard 24 hour period that usually applies. Like you say though, the Hebrew term can imply various definitions as well ...Do you feel it is more logical to extend a random figurative meaning to the word 'day' or should we allow the literal meaning to validate itself when interpreting the account?If you fancy the former method of interpretaion, what support do you use to justify the figurative usage of 'day' in this particular instance? I strongly disagree with this.Considering the text does not indicate, or even imply, that the couple was ever immortal, a plain reading of the text seems to imply that Adam began to die in verse 2:7 and Eve began to die in verse 2:22.What causes you to suggest that the couple was immortal at some point? I completely agree. Ummm ...This verse, attempting to support your proposition, refers to the events of the six day. It occurs a couple of chapters, and at least one 'yowm', before any realization of 'nakedness' is made. What does the 'goodness' of the sixth 'yowm' have to do with the events of the seventh 'yowm'? lol - can you, please, show me where I stated that the Father considered His children's nakedness as 'evil'?I mean, after all, you are the one who keeps suggesting that the Lovebirds acquired a knowledge of independence and rebellion (evil) from the fruit; yet, there has not even been one measly verse presented to support this bare assertion. I'm not trying to be rude, but c'mon Peg ...Show yourself approved, as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.I could understand if you thought Gen. 3:6 was an independent and rebellious act, but you have to accept that the decision to eat the magic fruit is made before the fruit is ingested. So, it could not have been the fruit that caused the independent and rebellious act.Perhaps this is why the reader is informed that Eve's offspring will have a mutual hatred with the serpent, rather than her future kin vandalising trees or taking up lumberjacking. One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Thanks for the exchange purpledawwn.
Hope all is well ... Which one?OK, here's the same question that I asked Peg ...Which one is it that you feel Adam is implying ... 1, 2, or 3?1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?2) Do you feel as though Adam is referring to the earlier time (Gen. 3:7) when he first perceived himself as naked; thus, implying that he no longer views himself in this manner with his figs on and that it is, instead, the 'shame' which he also accrued in addition to his original realization of 'nakedness', that is actually causing him to hide?3) Do you feel that neither of the above statements accurately depicts what is taking place? I mostly agree with you here.Can you find any significance in the fact that, before the birthday suit twins realized they were naked, they were not 'ashamed'; yet, after the realization is made, they become 'afraid'? Do you extend a figurative meaning to 'yowm' within the Garden narrative?If you do not, do you find significance in the fact that, by the time the Garden narrative finally climaxes, the Lovebirds do not die by the time the sun sets on the same day that the couple did not follow the teaching their Father gave them? I would say the dynamics change quite a bit if a figurative meaning is extended to the deadline of their consequences.You disagree? May it be safe to assume whether or not the original culture absorbing these teachings viewed clothing as an achievement of sorts that perhaps set them apart from other cultures surrounding them? So, would you agree that the story contains various implications that seem to suggest, with a certain amount of specificity, what may or may not have been perceived as 'good or bad knowledge' by the original audience? Again, can we gain any understanding of what the original audience considered good or bad by studying the narrative?Would you agree that the narrative attempts to explain an archaic fear or malcontent of reptiles, an awareness of the deceitful nature of life, etc.. What else can be easily gathered from the narrative ...Lastly, do you think that the original authors were too primitive to weave a wisdom tradition into the account and that the original audience would have been too primitive to understand such wisdom had it been injected by the author(s)?Granted, some of these are matters of opinion, but I highly value yours. One Love

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are well ... I agree ...We may also agree that, when various details of the story are ignored, the notion that the Lovebirds are still being harassed by a previous realization of nakedness may gain plausibility much easier.
As arbitrary and vague definitions are extended to various words and phrases a similar pattern seems to present itself quite often.btw, I noticed that you suggested the Lovebirds are running from their Father.Why do you think it is Him they are running from, as opposed to the serpent? I agree. What other details are on the surface of the story that may suggest why the couple is still afraid, even after their issue with nakedness is dealt with, when they hear their Father's voice. Whoaa, easy ...Aren't you forgetting an integral character from the narrative ? The story presents a dichotomy between being unashamed and then being afraid. Considering 'innocence' and 'purity' are not similies for 'unashamed', these additions of innocence and purity seemingly muddle the waters.Why introduce foreign details that are not contained in the original story, when there are already plenty of details naturally available that are, in fact, often overlooked and/or ignored?It would seem safer to suggest that the nakedness the couple perceived between each other was no longer providing a sense of composure and confidence. Do you agree? lol - what bible you readin'?When is the reader informed that Adam and Eve are innocent, pure or unaroused? I am not saying whether they were or otherwise, but I would trust the Bible quicker than your word.Firstly, being unashamed is not equivocal to purity, innocence and unarousal. Secondly, I have yet to locate details of this nature (purity, innocence, unarousal, etc.) in the story.The bible I have had the pleasure of perusing informs the reader that the couple becomes 'afraid'; at what verse is the reader informed that passionate thoughts are aroused between the Newlyweds ?Also, if you are suggesting that the Lovebirds were not ashamed before they took from the Tree of Knowledge because they were pure, innocent and unaroused, I politely disagree.Details of this nature have no grounding in the actual narrative as far as I can tell. Granted, the source of Adam and Eve's sense of fear and anxiety appear blatantly obvious.It seems that the couple's sensation of being unashamed should transfer to their sense of being afraid by some derivative detail that is in the actual story, rather than accredit the event to some arbitrary details that are not in the original narrative and were innocently injected at a later time.You disagree? lol - I suppose if passionate thoughts were aroused between the couple, it may explain something; although I'm not sure what. For example, perhaps such passionate thoughts could explain, seemingly more naturally and much easier, how Cain and Able came about ...Let's consider that the birthday suit twins became more like their Father, knowing Good and Bad, the same day that they realized they were naked. As soon as they make this observation, the couple begins to get dressed; as far as your concerned, was this a good move or a bad move? So, the couple's supposed fear of a penis and some nipples - caused by some 'bad' fruit - somehow encourages them to be afraid of their Father? Sorry Peg, this doesn't really appear to make much sense - didn't we already fill this hole anyway?I thought we agreed the story does not suggest that the children are afraid of their Father because they were naked. It simply informs the reader that:1) The couple realized they were not dressed.
2) The couple got dressed.
3) After the couple begins to realize things and become more like their Father, their previous sense of being unashamed turns to a sense of fear and anxiety.With coherency as a standard, we can't suggest they were afraid of a penis and some nipples one second, just to turn around and suggest they were afraid of their Father the next ...Can we? Can you show me where the couple displays fear towards their Father or not?Although it would seem excellent if you would, I'm assuming you will not, as you seldomly support your dogma with biblical inference.Please surprise me ... First, the couple lost a sense of being unashamed; unashamed and innocence, again, are not equivocal.Second, the lost sense of being unashamed lead to being afraid; however, it did not lead to a sense of shame.Shameful and afraid are not similies. What do you mean by 'such a rule'; are you referring to rules of literacy, logic, coherency, honesty, etc.? I agree. We know that the day that they ate from the fruit they became more like their Father. Chapter and verse please ...Their Father does not abandon them in the bible I am reading. Chapter and verse please ...Their Father does not leave them homeless in the bible I am reading. Chapter and verse please ...There is a sense of being unashamed that becomes transformed into a sense of being afraid.However, there does not appear to be any 'loss of innocence' in the Garden narrative. One out of four ain't bad ... ... as opposed to the day that they were each created?How does that follow? Again, unless one imposes immortality onto the couple within the narrative, we have to assume they began dying the day they were created; just like everybody else the Father ever created.Do you have biblical inference to suggest immortality or are you just goin' with your gut? I agree. I disagree to an extent. It appears that moving the goal posts is pretty convenient too ... not very fair though.What reason allows us to replace the value of a 'yowm' in this instance as opposed to any other usage of the term? How many meaning does this application get?lol - the rule of confusion states that: whenever a story does not fit what you have been told it suggests, freely substitute alternative definitions until the desired result is produced.Is this what you are saying (kinda)?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : clarify ...

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope your weekend is good ... lol - I got that part ol' girl ...I was wondering if you thought whether or not the children had any reason to fear the antagonist of the story ... what do you think ? How does one determine that the children are scapegoating, as opposed to reverently describing the course of events as they occured? Why would one leave out such important details when questioned by their Father ?How often are integral details purposefully left out of a defense ? This is what I'm squawkin' about kiddo. The story does not say a sense of shame caused the kids to get dressed; this is an added detail. Now, I don't think that adding details is horrible, but this is how stories are changed. If the details are important, but we change them to our own reasoning, we may miss available insight ...Granted, we'll have invented our own.A realization is made after Eve decides her Father may not be spot on about that ol' Tree ...The story says the Lovebirds got dressed, after they ate some fruit, because they realized they weren't. Within the narrative a realization caused the couple's dress rehearsal; not shame/unashamed or fear/unafraid.When the couple had no sense of shame they ran 'roun naked.When the couple realize they are naked they get dressed.When the couple is afraid they hide.'Unashamed' and 'unafraid' are not similies, anymore than 'shame' and 'fear' are.Shame is not in the story. Unashamed is in the story.Similarly, unafraid is not in the story, but afraid is.I hope you can realize (& appreciate) the Father's attention to detail ... Let's back up a second ...What are the Newlywed's various expectations concerning the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge? I figured composure and confidence were equivalent to the opposite of being 'afraid'; hopefully you can begin to see how inviting our own words may continue to confuse things a bit.Before the couple realized they were naked, they were not yet afraid; so they must have been confidently maintaining their composure ... right? Ok. This verse informs the reader that the couple has absolutely no sense of shame when meandering around without clothes on ...However, that does not equate unarousal, innocence and purity to being unashamed; this appear to be some more added details. The bible plainly informs us that it is because they became more like their Father knowing good and bad; their Father does not encourage running 'roun in the ol' b'day suit, as may be inferred by the latter wardrobe change He provided. Correct. We are informed that the fruit caused the couple to realize that they had no sense of shame, at which point they become reverent and fearful towards, what they perceive as, their Father's voice. Incorrect. Peg, shame and fear are not the same; shame is not in the story. I am unaware of the term 'fear' being used to connotate 'shame' within Hebrew scripture. However, I think you are aware that 'fear' often connotates a certain reverence within such texts. This seems to indicate that the Lovebirds were on the right track by getting dressed after making their startling realization. Do you agree? Paying attention to context often causes us to gain a more full understanding; imposing a context will likely do the opposite ...Perhaps we should refrain from imposing foreign contexts into the Garden narrative, if we have any desire to read it as the Father intended. What do you think? Ok ... How? First off, other than the inference one may gain by accepting that the Father proceeds to cover the couple's genitals better then they, themselves, were first able to, the reader is certainly not informed how the Father veiwed the Lovebird's genitals.You say that the couple became perverted and stopped viewing their genitals the way God viewed them.The bible says the couple stopped viewing their genitals the way they previously had when they had no sense of shame.Having no sense of shame is often what causes perversion.Do you disagree?One Love

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Glad to hear things are good for you.
Long post ahead, so take your time ... I strongly disagree; it seems this may remain a matter of opinion ...Perhaps your chosen interpretation is accurate, although I am unable to suggest how at this time.It appears as though Cain provides a fine example of one who sees no need to repent. It appears as though Adam accepted responsibility and encouraged Eve to accept hers as well. That is how the story goes ...If Eve was not first deceived, the reader has no grounds to contemplate whether Adam would be blatantly disobedient as many suggest he was. Similarly, there is no basis for him to have acted compassionately on behalf of his family as others suggest he may have.Ultimately, the Tree Law is transgressed via the serpent; this is confirmed when the Father says, 'Because you have done this ...'.However, the serpent does not blame, admit fault or repent. This is one area where various interpretations appear troubling to me.Granted, I am part of a large minority who's understanding of Adam's decision is not swayed by fundamental theory.Nevertheless, supposedly Paul suggests that, because Eve was deceived and her husband was only blatantly disobedient , teachings of men are somehow superior by default.Yet, how does that even begin to follow reasonably?On a separate note, in your interpretation of the events, what becomes Adam's motivation for listening to his wife and taking from the Tree?Without playing games, I will first disclose that I think his motivation was to be obedient to his wife and his Father. I am not referring to various details which have been left out to the reader, the various details that are blatantly ignored or the grandiose details that become inferred through dogma.If I suppose Eve should not have blamed the serpent, as you say she was wrong in doing, I make the Father out to be a liar.I am asking why anyone, whether Adam or Eve, would disclose that they have transgressed a law without describing the details that led to the transgression? I agree. Perhaps what is not clear is why Adam decided to act the way he did. This is not clear at all. If I am not mistaken, there is no 'devil' in Judaism; only HaSaTaN. I am sure you know that the term translates to 'the enemy' and, other than being an antagonist, the Jewish perspective of HaSaTaN has little similarity to the RCC's latter devised mechanism of guilt. First, it would seem as though these further considerations should follow the original story, rather than opposing them.Second, in order for the interpretation you present to stand, one must contrast popular jewish thought considerably.A small example is your habit of forcing the definition of the Hebrew term buwsh onto the Hebrew word yare'.This is almost as awkward as time and fundamentalism's attempt to water down the definition of repentance to eventually, and more simply, connotate admittance and profession of guilt; regardless of such attempts, metanonia remains much more than that. In the Beginning we are shown that those who come to believe nakedness is shameful have been deceived; the jews and their various leaders are no exception.Anybody who does not want to accept reality will be without excuses on their day of discernment; yet, not likely without mercy. It is fairly evident why ... various poli-religious leaders propagated a misinterpretation of Genesis to serve their passions and desires; whether it was done unintentionally or otherwise becomes the question.Anyone who feels a measure of shame when transgressing an imaginary 'dress code' has been brainwashed or deceived; they have made a clean thing unclean in their mind. Again, within the Garden narrative the Lovebirds never feel buwsh after the deception and transgression, but instead become yare'.Similarly, the reader is not told that Adam and Eve were naked and knew no yare', but rather that they were without buwsh.There appears to be certain folly in lending foreign definitions to various words that already have their own. I would be able to do this more easily if there was any indication within the text of these scriptures that 'new desires' had been realized.Instead, I am left to contemplate how the couple's realization of nakedness led to fear and reverence, as this is what scripture actually presents. This was one given expectation; are there any others you may have missed? If the bible is any authority, we may contemplate that the realization of nakedness itself, coupled with the subsequent fear or reverence towards their Father that ensued, was responsible to a certain extent. At one time I wondered. Eventually, as I began to devote much of my thought to the words of Yeshua, it became more clear to me that Canaan exposed Noah's faults to his brothers in a similar fashion as Yeshua did many years later to His generation.Again, in an eerily similar fashion, the exposed fraud is laid bare only a short time before aggressive actions are taken, by the fraudulent parties and their accomplices, to re-hide the Truth. And Noah began to be an husbandman (religious fella) __ and he planted a vineyard (religion/theology)

​

And he drank of the wine (lavish privilege) and was drunken (without remorse)

​

and he was uncovered (exposed) within his tent (congregation). Much like Yeshua, Canaan is constantly made out to be an asshole by his ancestors too. Poli-religous folk do not take kindly to others withering their money tree. Yet, if it were not true, one would expect to find their Father disposing of the fig aprons and not providing leather skins ...Clothing appears to be optional. As you have pointed out, one can see that the couple was not forced to dress before or after they ate from the Tree that caused them to become more like their Father; and after the event takes place, the couple realizes what being naked is and decides to rectify it, and their Father gives them better duds.Ultimately, both nudity and appropriate dress, in their own regard, appear to be esteemed by the Father. Do you disagree? I happen to think that the Lovebird's lack of psychological baggage was good in their Father's sight, as were the various processes of determination that began to reside within their psychology after the fact.However, 'and they continued naked and did not become ashamed' says absolutely nothing about whether or not having a sense of shame is good or bad. It simply suggests that before Adam and Eve began making various realizations, they had no sense of shame. Nothing more.Similarly, the appeal to 'God saw everything he had made and look it was very good' is completely baseless in this instance, as the seventh day, as well as the second, are never referred to as 'good' in the bible.The seventh day is blessed and set apart, but it is never classified as 'good' within the text; that is simply additional dogma. I understand that the ideas and inference you are presenting seem harmonious within Hebrew culture to you, but that does not change the fact that yare' does not mean, nor is it ever connotative of, buwsh at any time within Judeo-Christian texts. The two are different words with expressly distinct definitions.I would likely concede if you can provide an example, apart from the one that dogma is attempting to invent, of the Hebrew word for fear being used to express the Hebrew understanding of shame, or a lack thereof, anywhere within scripture. Exactly. I admire Hoshea's dual example ...Here, we are illuminated as to how those within the radical prophetic tradition may have understood the Hebrew perspective of nakedness.This chapter (2) continues a figurative address to Israel, in reference to Hosea's wife and children ...

quote:

---

Say ye unto your brethren Ammi and to your sisters Ruhamah

​

Plead with your mother plead for she is not my wife neither am I her husband let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight and her adulteries from between her breasts

​

Lest I strip her naked and set her as in the day that she was born and make her as a wilderness and set her like a dry land and slay her with thirst

​

And I will not have mercy upon her children for they be the children of whoredoms

​

For their mother hath played the harlot she that conceived them hath done shamefully for she said I will go after my lovers that give me my bread and my water my wool and my flax mine oil and my drink

​

Therefore behold I will hedge up thy way with thorns and make a wall that she shall not find her paths

​

And she shall follow after her lovers but she shall not overtake them and she shall seek them but shall not find them then shall she say I will go and return to my first husband for then was it better with me than now

​

For she did not know that I gave her corn and wine and oil and multiplied her silver and gold which they prepared for Baal

​

Therefore will I return and take away my corn in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness

​

And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers and none shall deliver her out of mine hand

---

Through the boldness and bravery of Hoshea, the Father expresses what would transpire with treacherous, idolatrous people. They did not embrace metanonia, therefore all this came upon them; and it is written for admonition to us.We are shown by Hoshea that to be naked in this context was to be stripped of all dishonesty and disregard. We can also see, towards the end of the quote, that the nakedness also refers to a certain vulnerability that one may encounter without the Father.So, this example is in alignment with Noah's nakedness in Gen. 9. We are naked when we disregard and exploit the ways of the Father, as well as when we are naive to them. The Garden story does not express the proper functions of sexual acts or otherwise; we are discussing the implications of various dress codes.The Lovebird's story does not discuss sex or its purpose, so whatever substance can be gleamed from the Mosaic laws in that regard apparently offers no assistance towards an honest interpretation of the Garden narrative.If you cannot see that the initial decision to stay naked is affirmed by their Father’s decision to not force a dress code and that the couple’s latter decision to wear clothes is also affirmed by their Father’s decision to provide more durable clothing — all freely available inference from a plain reading of the text — then no amount of my blathering will likely convince you otherwise. There is no if. The bible plainly states that the couple did become more like their Father. I had trouble with this when I was younger too ... it does not help when those you respect and admire ignore the truth of scripture.Trust Yeshua's words ... lol - that is a bold statement; not to imply that some of mine aren't. In actuality, it would appear as though it never appeared.I am sorry friend. There is no sexy time in the Garden. I noticed you avoided the question ...Peg, it does not matter whether or not I believe the Newlyweds would have eventually become 'perverted' had they not 'disobeyed'.The fact is, they become 'perverted' before they 'disobey'. I believe she may be perverted, but her style of dress is simply an external indicator of her deeper internal blemish; not simply an act of perversion in and of itself.Suppose, for a moment, that prostitute is carried to a land where nudity is embraced as pure; will her revealing clothing offer any deeper revelation of a woman's body to those in attendance? In what way might the scantily clad whore's appearance continue to provide temptation to a nudist colony?Yet, if a society collectively makes unclothed people out to be outcasts, that is what they will be perceived as and, ultimately, how they will be treated. It does not mean that the naked folks are indeed unclean outcasts.This is along the lines of what Yeshua teaches us; a thing is only unclean when one makes it unclean. Assumedly, it is to create, expedite and increase a fictitious value, and hence extort profits, through an act of illusion.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ...
Hope your day is well. The realization of nakedness is indeed after the Lovebird's deception and transgression regarding the Tree Law. I do not suggest otherwise ...What is not clearly revealed in Genesis, or elsewhere, is whether or not the realization of nakedness was actually perverted.We are not in agreement that the realization of nakedness was perverted; that claim does not belong to me.However, if you can see, a certain deviance on Eve's part is readily available before the fruit is partaken of.In Gen. 3:3 Eve blatantly lies. In Gen. 3:6, she perceives that the Tree is to be desired to make one wise.Both of these are perversions and both occur before the Tree Law is transgressed; so, yes ...It appears as though Eve was indeed damaged before she ate the magic fruit. lol - I like them too ...It's encouraging.One Love